ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Supporter

We often see it claimed here that a non-vote is a vote for the president.

However, if a person is leaning toward the president and does not vote is that a vote for Gov Romney?

Click to expand...

One of the myths of the US system is this notion that if I don't vote its just a vote for the other person. That isn't how our system works.

This assumes that:
1. There are only two parties
2. That someone will vote in your place
3. When it comes to electing a President it neglects how the Electoral College functions.

In our federal constitutional republic all votes count, but some matter more than others. Right now if you live in Texas and you plan on voting Republican that isn't a consequential as someone living in, say, North Carolina. Since Texas will go Republican (by probably about 60-65%) a Republican vote isn't as important. This changes if one lives in North Carolina.

Now I'll also point out that if there are 150 people who are registered and eligible to vote in an election and 50 of them decide to stay home and not vote it doesn't mean its a vote for the other guy. It simply means that the necessary votes to acheive a majority (50% + 1 vote) drops. In this scenario it would mean that there are simply less votes needed and not a vote for the other person. Now if all 150 people were to vote a winning candidate would need 76 votes to win. They still need the votes, simply choosing not to vote for candidate A or candidate B doesn't mean that the other candidate suddenly picks up the missing vote.

Anyone who can't figure that one out needs remedial math and civics. When it comes to voting for the President one must remember how the Electoral College works. Without that knowledge you further compound ignorance...and that doens't help anyone.

ExpandCollapse

<img src =/curtis.gif>

I accept the charge mentioned in tho O/P. The "a vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama" charge means little to me, as I would rather see Obama with a GOP majority in congress, than Romney with one.

And there will most certainly be a huge republican majority in the house, possibly the senate, and they will also make gains in the country-wide local elections.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

I accept the charge mentioned in tho O/P. The "a vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama" charge means little to me, as I would rather see Obama with a GOP majority in congress, than Romney with one.

ExpandCollapse

Administrator

Administrator

One of the myths of the US system is this notion that if I don't vote its just a vote for the other person. That isn't how our system works.

This assumes that:
1. There are only two parties
2. That someone will vote in your place
3. When it comes to electing a President it neglects how the Electoral College functions.

In our federal constitutional republic all votes count, but some matter more than others. Right now if you live in Texas and you plan on voting Republican that isn't a consequential as someone living in, say, North Carolina. Since Texas will go Republican (by probably about 60-65%) a Republican vote isn't as important. This changes if one lives in North Carolina.

Now I'll also point out that if there are 150 people who are registered and eligible to vote in an election and 50 of them decide to stay home and not vote it doesn't mean its a vote for the other guy. It simply means that the necessary votes to acheive a majority (50% + 1 vote) drops. In this scenario it would mean that there are simply less votes needed and not a vote for the other person. Now if all 150 people were to vote a winning candidate would need 76 votes to win. They still need the votes, simply choosing not to vote for candidate A or candidate B doesn't mean that the other candidate suddenly picks up the missing vote.

Anyone who can't figure that one out needs remedial math and civics. When it comes to voting for the President one must remember how the Electoral College works. Without that knowledge you further compound ignorance...and that doens't help anyone.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

We often see it claimed here that a non-vote is a vote for the president.

However, if a person is leaning toward the president and does not vote is that a vote for Gov Romney?

Click to expand...

It is adumb argument with poor logic that ignores other factors. It assumes that a vote should only be for someone that wins. When in fact our votes are based on, and always have been, the idea that we vote for the candidate we find personally is best suited for the office.

Every time someone makes that argument they show their ignorance of our voting system.

I praise God Americans have the right to vote their conscience which is one of the foundational principles of this country.

ExpandCollapse

Member

The saying is actually "Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote." It's attributed to George Jean Nathan, and the saying is akin to the proverb, "All evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing."

Both sayings have their roots in the Book of Proverbs, which says, "He also that is slothful in his work is brother to him that is a great waster," (waster meaning destroyer).

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

I still hold that a vote for a third party is a vote wasted, since the third party cannot win. Any vote for a third party is a vote not gotten by the lesser evil of the two main parties. A vote not gotten by an opponent is a vote gained, just like in sports; if you stop the other team from scoring 2 points, you've essentially gained 2 points.

The math in the earlier post seemed sound, but was skewed. If you have 150 voters in an area, and roughly 50% of them are conservative, then you have a 75/75 split. If any of those conservative voters end up voting third party (or not voting at all, same effect), then the liberal vote wins.

So, instead of voting for a man who they think would be good, they've actually wasted their vote, and given it to the person that they least want to win. (btw, the same goes for the conservative side. A vote for a third party is to vote for the person you'd least like to see to win.)

Also, the assumption isn't that there are only two parties. The fact is that the other parties don't have the support to win, and so actually take away votes that could help the more conservative (or liberal, if you aren't close enough to God to be conservative (said tongue in cheek ... kind of)) of the two major parties win.

I will agree that a conservative vote lost in a conservative area, and same for liberals, isn't a big deal. In fact, I vote conservative in Illinois, which generally votes liberal. (Another discussion, as most of the area in Illinois is conservative, but there are enough people in Chicago to sway the entire state's vote. And this is why I don't particualarly like the electoral college as it works now.) And since my conservative vote is going to be assuredly outvoted by liberals, my vote doesn't really matter. But, in the borderline areas/states, the statement rings true that a vote for a third party (or not voting) is a vote for the guy you'd least like to win.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

If you want to disagree, then do so intelligently. Don't take an entire post that I took the time to write and then dismiss it without any word of why. I looked at others' arguments and then posted why I disagree with them. At least be courteous enough to do the same to me.

saturneptune said:

Duh

Click to expand...

And now we've allowed ourselves to slip into shildish antics instead of discussion/debate. Again, I posted why I disagree. Either answer the post, or if you believe you have already, then remain silent and agree to disagree.

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!